BAJRANGLAL AGARWALLA Vs. KAMALESH KUMAR BAWRI AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition arises from the order dated 27.3.1985 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge No. 1, Gauhati, in Title Suit No. 124 of 1983.

(2.) TWO minors, namely, Kamalesh Kumar Bawri and Ritesh Kumar Bawri have instituted the suit against the Petitioner. In the "titles of the suit" and the "description of the parties" in the case, the Plaintiffs have been described as:

(3.) UNDER Order 32, Rule 1 of the Code every suit by a minor shall be instituted in his name by a person who in such suit shall be called the "next friend" of the minor. In the present case, instead of stating ''by the next friend", it has been stated: "Both are minors and represented by their mother Smti. Puspha Devi Bawri''. Therefore, the description of the Plaintiffs, in the title of the suit, has not been technically or artistically worded. The expression "next friend" denotes through whom a minor acts. The word "by" appearing in Order 32, Rule 1 of the Code means "through the agency or instrumentality of". As such, the u"e of the expression "represented by", in the plaint shows that the suit is intended to be filed by the minors in their names by their mother or through the agency of their mother. Under these circumstances, in the sent present, the minors are the real Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs act through their mother, that is, the mother is the next friend in true sense. In this view of the matter, Order 32 , Rule 1 and the Form in Appendix -A of the Code have been substantially complied with. That apart. It has been more than once held by the highest judicial Authority that the pleadings of the parties should not be strictly construed as in England. In Kadar Lal v. Hari Lal : AIR 1952 S.C. 47, Supreme Court held: